# Proof Minkowski Spacetime is Poorly Conceived

Yes. A set of Cartesian coordinates with no preferred frame, no preferred standard of time, time dilation, velocity, relative velocity, relative proportional velocity, origin or length that can be applied to a "set of Cartesian coordinates", much less the math or geometry that purports to manipulate them in any number of dimensions that are carbon copies of this imaginary one. Oooopsy!
I understand the technical term for that is "crap". (For one thing it doesn't even parse properly.)

I understand the technical term for that is "crap". (For one thing it doesn't even parse properly.)
Oh, yeah. But if you will notice, I am not the source of that "crap". Just expanding some of rpenner's crap in defense of using the geometric techniques of solid geometry on proportional relative inertialess light propagation time in higher dimensions.

Like nailing jello to a wall of air in its gaseous phase. I don't care how big your n x n matrices or how many tensors there are. It's still crap.

It's hard to talk about such things without getting soiled by some of its many misconceptions.

Parse that, if you can.

Last edited:
If Minkowsi rotations worked the way he calculated them, part of the necessary relativistic hyperbolic rotations of lengths (the parts that are 3D) would be evident in the room in which you are sitting right now. They would not behave the way Einstein's meter sticks on a relativistic train did. Things with inertia would spontaneously start spinning as a result of their passage through time.
Has this assertion ever been demonstrated to be more than a fantasy?

It's obviously not a Euclidean anything because now we have complex numbers, making the norm now indefinite.
I know all about complex numbers. It is still a vector space; you just can't mix the real parts with the imaginary parts.

Well, space as it relates to time isn't anything like complex numbers. Space IS time. ALL OF IT, not just part of it.

Understanding what 'proper time' is, is not an excuse to use it as a preferred reference frame. Unless your mental scaffolding is rusty or otherwise unstable.

When the ratio between time dilations is unity, the ratio of relative time vs <time dilation of> the object of choice is NOT NECESSARILY because they happen to be in the same reference frame. Remember, I am one with relativity.

Think about the twin paradox, in the case in which both twins leave in spaceships that travel in opposite directions at relativistic speeds that are equal. Time dilation will be equal, but the frames may be very different, and FOR A WIDE RANGE 0f equal velocities, even up to +/- c - (10^-100)c.

This is why rest mass is as invariant as c, or more explicitly, +/- c.

Exactly the same sort of invariance happens in the interiors of fundamental particles of matter, which gives rise to their invariant rest masses and inertia. Time dilation at their centers may be the same as in surrounding space, or depending on issues of quantum relativistic rotation, it may give rise to a host of other important fundamental particle characteristics like charge and/or quantum spin and entanglement.

You don't get that far with Mink spacetime. There are several good reasons you don't. The speed of light in a vacuum as a limit to the fastest moving thing you can base an instrument that measures time is only one. That part never was consistent with Maxwell either, even though that is one reason Mink spacetime was originally crafted.

Still with me, or does anyone want this to be my last post? Now tell us, who is your crank?

Last edited:
Understanding what 'proper time' is, is not an excuse to use it as a preferred reference frame. Unless your mental scaffolding is rusty or otherwise unstable.
You are the only person suggesting that proper time is ever used in this manner. So, I agree with your assessment!

When the ratio between time dilations is unity, the ratio of relative time vs <time dilation of> the object of choice is NOT NECESSARILY because they happen to be in the same reference frame. Remember, I am one with relativity.
There is no such thing as time dilation in one reference frame. It is very hard to remember something that one had not only never experienced, but that one had only had experiences to the negative.

Yes, please do, while remembering that people who think this is a real paradox are wrong and do not understand relativity theory.
in the case in which both twins leave in spaceships that travel in opposite directions at relativistic speeds that are equal. Time dilation will be equal, but the frames may be very different, and FOR A WIDE RANGE 0f equal velocities, even up to +/- c - (10^-100)c.
Also think about how this isn't the supposed "twin paradox"!
Still with me, or does anyone want this to be my last post? Now tell us, who is your crank?
Please stop posting and see a mental health professional. You are such a crank it is merely sad.

Still with me, or does anyone want this to be my last post?
Many would greatly appreciate such a noble, though long delayed gesture. (It would certainly be more welcoming than the gesture I am presently making.)

Many would greatly appreciate such a noble, though long delayed gesture. (It would certainly be more welcoming than the gesture I am presently making.)

Something to do with Agincourt, perhaps?........

Something to do with Agincourt, perhaps?........
It turns out that is an urban myth - or perhaps more accurately, a rural myth. I can't really put my finger on the right word.

It turns out that is an urban myth - or perhaps more accurately, a rural myth. I can't really put my finger on the right word.

..or fingers..... Seems nobody knows the origin and it can't have been going that long as Churchill had to have its meaning explained to him. But we digress....

Have it your way.

"It isn't cool to talk about things you know nothing about."

-- president Barach Obama, at a commencement speech given at Rutger's, May 2016

OK, so like, I haven't read a lot of this thread, but what was the main point?

Are you wanting to publish something?

OK, so like, I haven't read a lot of this thread, but what was the main point?
Oh for the love of The God, are you really trying to get him going again??

Are you wanting to publish something?
Only in his mind...

Still with me, or does anyone want this to be my last post?
Last post.

A final set of related links (not a "post"), strictly speaking. Further comments on the content of the links is not solicited.

https://xphysics.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/rybczyk-transformations/

"Millenium Relativity" is not pseudoscience or an alternative theory either, and within it, the Lorentz transformations are used, but Mink spacetime seems to be notably absent and has been replaced by special velocity transforms peculiar to this theory.. A stronger link between time and inertia is very evident. An attempt is made to reconcile GR with some of the new formulas. For the most part, the numerical predictions of both are very, very close to each other.

This internet published research on this theory, due to Joseph Rybczyk, a noted and well educated physicist, was heavily discouraged by the NSF, among other detractors.

When I first read it, many years ago, I thought it was pseudoscience also. Now, I'm not quite as certain.

Finally, an alternative view of relativity and what Western science honestly had to say about its preeminence in the 20th century, as if there was any doubt, much of it was on the ropes during that period also. Like many other discussions of relativity, it seems unclear to whether it is really science or philosophy:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/The-essence-of-special-relativity.pdf

Last edited:
A final set of related links (not a "post"), strictly speaking. Further comments on the content of the links is not solicited.

https://xphysics.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/rybczyk-transformations/

"Millenium Relativity" is not pseudoscience or an alternative theory either, and within it, the Lorentz transformations are used, but Mink spacetime seems to be notably absent and has been replaced by special velocity transforms peculiar to this theory.. A stronger link between time and inertia is very evident. An attempt is made to reconcile GR with some of the new formulas. For the most part, the numerical predictions of both are very, very close to each other.

This internet published research on this theory, due to Joseph Rybczyk, a noted and well educated physicist, was heavily discouraged by the NSF, among other detractors.
This is another sign of your delusion. The link you provided, should you actually read it, does not produce the Lorentz transformations, it produces an alternative.

If you believe the Lorentz transformations, like you sometimes pretend, then you have to accept Minkowski. The transformations in your link do not match the Lorentz transformations. This means that they do not match the available observations. The link you provided, should you actually read it, provides exactly the same thing for the alternative that Minkowski did for the Lorentz transformations. That you accept this for an alternative but not for the Lorentz transformations is a sign of your pathology, not of the logical status of any theory.
When I first read it, many years ago, I thought it was pseudoscience also. Now, I'm not quite as certain.
OK, then show us how this theory does in a real-world application relative to the Lorentz transformations. This is the most basic thing that anyone truly interested in this alternative would do.
Finally, an alternative view of relativity and what Western science honestly had to say about its preeminence in the 20th century, as if there was any doubt, much of it was on the ropes during that period also. Like many other discussions of relativity, it seems unclear to whether it is really science or philosophy:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/The-essence-of-special-relativity.pdf
Yep, that seems like the kind of scholarship that one would identify with your position.

Finally, an alternative view of relativity and what Western science honestly had to say about its preeminence in the 20th century, as if there was any doubt, much of it was on the ropes during that period also. Like many other discussions of relativity, it seems unclear to whether it is really science or philosophy:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/The-essence-of-special-relativity.pdf
OMG, this is too fucking funny. It has to be preserved for posterity! Here is the logical problem with SR:

danshawen's recommended argument against special relativity said:
In general, people can know and research the world through light with eyes. However, blinds and bats depend on sound wave to know and research the world. If special relativity is right, then the result of anything’s velocity less than sound velocity would be gotten for blinds and bats.
Therefore, the theory foundation of special relativity is wrong.

I previously described one of your posts as delusional. I described a later post as seriously delusional.

I now need to describe your latest offering as delusional perception of a reality that is itself delusional.

Astounding!

I previously described one of your posts as delusional. I described a later post as seriously delusional.

I now need to describe your latest offering as delusional perception of a reality that is itself delusional.

Astounding!
I'm grateful it has amused you. Take care, Ophiolite.

"Scientists do not give up their disputed ideas; they only die." -- Planck

Last edited:
"Scientists do not give up their disputed ideas; they only die." -- Planck
That's a great quote. Too bad that looking at the actual history of science shows that Plank was wrong. Someone probably pointed that out to him and he then changed his position.

Cranks, however, do not give up their ideas.